COMPARISON OF MEASUREMENT VARIABILITY IN SUBJECTS WITH MODERATE PERIODONTITIS USING A CONVENTIONAL AND CONSTANT FORCE PERIODONTAL PROBE
COMPARISON OF MEASUREMENT VARIABILITY IN SUBJECTS WITH MODERATE PERIODONTITIS USING A CONVENTIONAL AND CONSTANT FORCE PERIODONTAL PROBE
复制标题
DOI：
10.1902/jop.1992.63.4.283
复制
发表时间：
1992-04-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
PIHLSTROM, BL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
OSBORN, JB;STOLTENBERG, JL;PIHLSTROM, BL
本研究比较了佛罗里达探针、佛罗里达圆盘探针和传统牙周探针在中重度牙周炎患者中的检查者内和检查者间测量误差。 将使用传统探头的单程测量与使用佛罗里达探头和佛罗里达圆盘探头的单程和双程（校正）测量进行比较。 对于佛罗里达探针，重复部位探测深度测量值的平均检查者内标准差范围为0.60至0.93 mm，而对于传统探针，检查者内标准差范围为0.52至0.89 mm。 根据总体平均值，在相同地点，传统探头测得的探测深度比佛罗里达探头更深。 这种差异在深度大于或等于6 mm的囊袋中尤其明显。 根据网站，使用佛罗里达圆盘探针重复测量的相对附着水平差异的平均检查者内标准差范围为0.55至0.82 mm。使用传统探针获得的附着水平部位测量的平均标准差范围为0.62至1.14 mm。检查者间测量误差大于检查者内测量误差。每种探测方法的检查员测量误差。 得出的结论是，使用佛罗里达探针和佛罗里达磁盘探针可能在减少某些临床检查员的测量误差方面具有显着优势。 对于其他检查员，使用佛罗里达探针不一定比使用传统探测方法产生更少的测量误差。
THIS STUDY COMPARED THE intra- and inter-examiner measurement error of the Florida Probe, Florida Disk Probe, and conventional periodontal probe in persons having moderate to severe periodontitis. Single pass measurements using the conventional probe were compared to both single and double pass (corrected) measurements using the Florida Probe and Florida Disk Probe. The mean intra-examiner standard deviations of differences in repeated site probing depth measurements ranged from 0.60 to 0.93 mm for the Florida Probe and from 0.52 to 0.89 mm for the conventional probe. Based on overall averages, the conventional probe measured deeper probing depths than the Florida Probe at the same sites. This difference was especially evident in pockets greater-than-or-equal-to 6 mm in depth. Based on sites, the mean intra-examiner standard deviations of differences in repeated relative attachment level measurements using the Florida Disk Probe ranged from 0.55 to 0.82 mm. The mean standard deviations of site measurements for attachment level obtained with the conventional probe ranged from 0.62 to 1.14 mm. Inter-examiner measurement error was greater than intra-examiner measurement error for each probing method. It was concluded that use of the Florida Probe and Florida Disk Probe may offer significant advantages in reducing measurement error for some clinical examiners. For other examiners, use of the Florida Probes do not necessarily result in less measurement error than use of conventional probing methods.